Other Branch

Phil Tippet's Prehistoric Stock Footage

2011-11-17T16:04:00.000-08:00

In 1984, stop motion animator Phil Tippet created a short film called Prehistoric Beast, which told the story of a "Monoclonius" and its deadly encounter with a hungry Tyrannosaurus, and is widely regarded as a masterpiece of dinosaur cinema. Shortly after the release of Prehistoric Beast, Tippet was hired to create additional dinosaur scenes for a CBS documentary simply titled Dinosaur! (not to be confused with the A&E documentary series of the same name, even down to the exclamation point). Scenes created for the documentary included the growing up of a baby hadrosaur, a Struthiomimus raiding a nest and later hunted down by a pair of Deinonychus, a herd of Apatosaurus feeding, and the extinction of the dinosaurs.

However, it is not the documentary itself that I want to focus on for this post, but rather the legacy it left behind. It seems that after the program premiered, both the footage from Prehistoric Beast and the additional scenes made for Dinosaur! became widely used stock footage for other documentaries (and in at least one case a computer game, as explained below). I do not know why this particular footage was used so much, but regardless, it became a prominent part of my childhood. In all those years of seeing the sequences I mentioned above, I had never seen or even heard of either program. For a long time, I wondered where these ubiquitous sequences had come from. I finally got a partial answer when I came across Dinosaur! and the footage I had grown up with. I initially assumed that was the original source, until I learned of Prehistoric Beast, after which all pieces of the puzzle fell into place, and I was satisfied.

I want to give a brief discussion of some of the sources that made use of this stock footage. It is not meant to be comprehensive, only a listing of the examples that I personally grew up with. If you know of any others let me know in the comments. First off, the PBS documentary The Dinosaurs! (sheesh, dino doc makers sure loved exclamation points back then) used a few brief scenes from Prehistoric Beast and Dinosaur! but mainly relied on animations created specifically for the program. Eyewitness Dinosaur used some of this footage, such as the scene where "Monoclonius" is attacked and bits with the Struthiomimus. The Really Wild Animals episode about dinosaurs used Tippet's footage extensively, especially the hadrosaur story. And finally, the computer game 3-D Dinosaur Adventure used several sequences in the Movies area.

Know Your Texas Paleo: Paluxysaurus jonesi

2011-10-13T10:14:00.001-07:00

Well, I'm back. I haven't blogged in a while because I've had a hard time coming up with ideas. I don't know if you remember, but in my last update post, I said I was going to cover a discuss hot topic in the paleo community. That topic was pack-hunting theropods, but since that has already been discussed on Saurian way better than I could have, I decided to let that issue slip by. In my quest to find ways to spice up this blog, I have decided to start a series covering various aspects of the paleontology of Texas, my state of residence. Despite being a hotspot for fossils, I find that Texas tends to get overlooked for whatever reason, though that might just be my own bias. Regardless, I would like to share the paleontology from the Lone Star State with everybody, so here's my first entry in the series. And what better way to start off than with the State Dinosaur of Texas itself, Paluxysaurus jonesi (picture of mounted Paluxysaurus head and neck by yours truly).

Paluxysaurus is a sauropod from the Early Cretaceous (about late Aptian to early Albian) Twin Mountains Formation, discovered in Hood County. It is known from the remains of at least four individuals found in a bonebed on Jones Ranch. When the remains were first discovered, they were assigned to the problematic sauropod genus Pleurocoelus. It wasn't until 2007, when Peter Rose published a paper identifying the specimens as belonging to a new genus and species, Paluxysaurus jonesi, after the Paluxy River and Jones Ranch, where the fossils were found. His cladistic analysis found Paluxysaurus be a basal Titanosauriform, and likely a brachiosaurid.

As mentioned above, Paluxysaurus has the honor of carrying the title of Texas State Dinosaur. However, that title had previously been taken by Pleurocoelus, which over the years has been a sort of wastebasket taxon for sauropods found in Early Cretaceous deposits in Texas and other parts of North America. With the reclassification of the best material previously attributed to this genus, the situation was amended and Paluxysaurus was named the new State Dinosaur. Shortly after this a full skeleton of Paluxysaurus was mounted in the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History. Much of the mount is reconstructed due to the incompleteness of the original remains, but it is still a sight to behold.

References:

Rose, Peter J. (2007). A new titanosauriform sauropod (Dinosauria: Sauriscia) from the Early Cretaceous of central Texas and its phylogenetic relationships. Palaeontologia Electronica 10 (2).

Xuanhanosaurus: The Four-legged Theropod?

2011-07-26T16:58:00.000-07:00

Illustration of Xuanhanosaurus as a quadruped by Ghedo, from Wikipedia

Last week I visited an exhibit on Chinese dinosaurs. I enjoyed the exhibit greatly, but all the thoughts about dinosaurs from China got me thinking of a particular dinosaur from that country. The dinosaur in question is Xuanhanosaurus (although you might have figured that out from the title). Not much that has or can be said about this Jurassic theropod. For the most part it seems to be treated as just another taxon to use in completing a relevant cladistic analysis. However, there is at least one interesting point of discussion about this apparently unremarkable dinosaur, and it has to do with a rather unorthodox interpretation of the animal's anatomy and behavior.

In 1984, famed Chinese paleontologist Dong Zhiming published the paper naming and describing Xuanhanosaurus. In the paper, Dong made note of the long, robust forelimbs of the skeleton. With this in mind, he made the unusual proposition that Xuanhanosaurus was actually a quadruped. This is certainly an intriguing idea, but unfortunately it has not held up well with current paleontological knowledge. The biggest problem with this idea is that it is now known that theropods were not capable of pronating their hands. For this dinosaur to have walked on all fours, it would have to walk on its knuckles like a giant anteater, a position most would find quite unlikely for a theropod. As a result, it is highly unlikely that Xuanhanosaurus, or indeed any theropod, was a quadruped. It's a bit of a shame to me, as I think a theropod walking on four legs would be kind of cool.

It should also be noted that Dong's proposition actually appears to have had an oft overlooked effect on dinosaur pop culture. In Safari Ltd.'s Dinosaurs of China line, the Yangchuanosaurus is depicted in an odd quadrupedal pose. Could Ely Kish (who originally sculpted the models) have heard of the idea of Xuanhanosaurus being a quadruped and thought it might apply to another Chinese theropod? It seems like a very real possibility to me.

Another Update

2011-07-18T11:14:00.000-07:00

Hey there folks. I know I haven't been very active lately, but I'm hoping to change that. I just want to provide a quick update on my future plans for this blog.

First off, I haven't been very regular with my Paleo Book of the Month Posts. Because of this, I've decided to stop making book reviews a monthly feature of my blog. I've found that trying to follow a regular schedule has turned the these reviews into a chore, and I don't want it to be like that. I want to have fun with this blog, not treat it like I have some contract to do certain things. Don't worry, I'll still review books for you guys, but it's not going to be one review each month. However, this means I'm going to need to change the name of the series. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know.

Second, I do have a couple science related posts planned for the near future. I'm not going to say what they're specifically about, but one covers my thoughts on a current hot topic in paleontology, and another is about a somewhat obscure bit of strangeness that I'd like to share.

With all that out of the way, I hope you guys enjoy what I have in store and thanks for sticking around with me. Good day people.

New Paleontology Forum

2011-07-01T11:43:00.000-07:00

I just want to make a quick post noting that there is a new paleontology forum on the web called Hell Creek. It was started by an acquaintance of mine called Tomozaurus, who some of you may know as the guy responsible for this. Anyway, I'm just doing my part to spread the word. If you like, you can register and join the fun. Hope to see you there!

P.S. If you want to find me there, my username is Gorgoraptor.

Terry Alan Davis, Jr. Interview: Live the Legend

2011-06-24T12:11:00.000-07:00

Hello guys, and welcome to my blog's first ever interview! The person who was kind enough to let me conduct this interview is Terry Alan Davis, Jr., the creator of Jurassic Park Legacy. I know what you might be thinking, "But David Orr already interviewed Terry about JPL." Well, this interview is going to be a little different from the LITC one, in that it focuses on a specific aspect of JPL, and that is Live the Legend, a text-based role playing game hosted by the site. I'd explain it further, but that's what this interview is for. Enjoy!

Me: First off, for those who don't know, what is Live the Legend?

Terry: Live the Legend is a text-based RPG that was started in about 2004/2005 about what it would be like to play a dinosaur in the Jurassic Park universe. It was actually originally a "Dragon RPG" planned by Jeff Venancio, T-Rex_Master as such. I liked the idea and a previously established "Free-Roaming Dinosaurs" text-based RPG existed. We merged the concepts, created the territories, and there you have it. We wanted something within the film-canon though and even serve as a supplement, an expansion to the storyline.

Me: What do the players do in LtL?

Terry: Players play on a variety of three different islands and the mainland from the continuity. Isla Sorna (Site B), Azores [now renamed Isla Lagarto] (The abandoned JP:Europe park), Isla Nublar (a recovering ecological ecosystem), and the mainland (Costa Rican Village). Players can choose to play as a dinosaur and live life essentially like the dinosaurs did in the films. I've always envisioned LtL as a Walking with Dinosaurs spin on the Jurassic Park franchise. Generally though you play as a dinosaur where your main focus is survival and you sort of create your own story while reacting toward GM events such as weather, human interference, or the beast known as Rancor an animal from the Jurassic Park Chaos Effect property.

Me: What are some of the species players can play as?

Terry: Players can play as a wide arrange of animals and such. Mostly you play as dinosaurs - essentially the ones in the films you see, but other possibilities have opened after time as with Isla Muerta where you can play as now Cenozoic and Paleozoic life forms. Eventually we plan on bridging another gap in the canon to include Chaos Effect animals.

Me: Can you tell us a bit about your characters?

Terry: Sure, I've played a lot of characters so far in the game. There's my first character, Solitaire. He's a Tyrannosaurus and among the first to be cloned on the island. His mate was the Tyrannosaurus you see in the first film - their offspring is also the female that you see from The Lost World. This technically isn't canon, but I liked the idea of there being this huge T.rex that is the parent and mate of the ones we see in the films. He's kind of the protagonist/hero of the RPG. Something that hunts within the laws of the jungle. I kind of give Solitaire a rule of nobility despite his huge size. His size is what drew me to now making him a Sauropod hunter.

Then we have Alouqua, Alouqua is a "Velociraptor" or Deinonychus from a secret inGen/US Military venture to create basically "intelligent Raptors for war" a bit of a stretch on the imagination. This works into our eventual Chaos Effect story line trying to fit that into a realistic universe setting.

Now Rancor, Rancor is also from that Chaos Effect storyline and he's an Ultimasaurus, which if you don't know what that is exactly then it's basically a Tyrannosaurus body plan with Ceratopsian and Thyreophora features along with sickle claws on the feet. His temperament is the exact opposite of Solitaire and it draws them into confrontation quite often. He's been deemed the "Icon of Sin" by the staff due to how he just is generally antagonistic in his relationship to the island.

I have Praxia a Triceratops and I used to have a Centrosaurus named Gluskab. Then I have my human characters I'm figuring out for Jurassic Trackers when we bring humans to the island.

Me: Who are some of your favorite characters, aside from your own?

Terry: I actually liked Noose, a Carnotaurus played by Veritas. Giggles, if he reads this is going to rub it in my face, but I kind of like Red Fang [a Giganotosaurus]. I've enjoyed Rick [a human stranded on Isla Sorna], Nezbit [a raptor of the JP3 variety], and Sanguis [a raptor of the same type as Aloqua]. In truth everybody spends a lot of time with their characters and developing them. I even liked TyAe's characters and was sad to cull them per policy. I'd love to find a way to bring him and his characters back to the LtL game personally.

Me: How has LtL changed since its original inception?

Terry: LtL has expanded for one. It was actually a one thread-one island deal that expanded to multiple territories interacting with one another. It's gone from that now to the multiple playable islands it has now with the Azores, Nublar, the Five Deaths, the Costa Rican Mainland, some aspects of the mainland, and a few other locations being tossed in later in game. It's a constantly evolving game. Personally I'd love to see LtL evolve from a text game at some point to 3D engaging world where it plays similar to WoW in some aspects, but different objectives of course.

Me: Well, thanks a lot for doing this interview. Is there anything else you want to say before we wrap it up?

Terry: No problem. As for anything else please be sure to join up on the site!

Stephen Czerkas: A Case of Embarrassment?

2011-05-30T17:39:00.000-07:00

One of Stephen Czerkas' feathered Deinonychus sculptures. (Public domain image from Wikipedia)

Well, folks, I finally got an idea for a new post. I actually thought of this months ago, but kept forgetting to write it down. Today I want to talk about Stephen Czerkas. Specifically, I want to talk about his recent positions on bird evolution, and a possible cause of them.

In the 80s and most of the 90s, Stephen Czerkas was a name that was fairly well respected in the paleo community. In addition to being a paleoartist who made beautiful sculptures, he was also recognized as an amateur paleontologist. As the latter, he was perhaps best known for describing dermal spines on Diplodocus.

However, in 1999, things took an unfortunate turn. Czerkas purchased a bird fossil from China at the Tuscon Gem and Mineral Show. The fossil, which appeared to be a bird with a long, bony tail, was dubbed "Archaeoraptor" by Czerkas. He wrote up a description of this find, but the major journals Science and Nature rejected the paper. Finally, an article of the espousing the apparently revolutionary find was published in National Geographic. Unfortunately, closer scientific study revealed that "Archaeoraptor" specimen was not that of a single animal, but rather a chimera, the tail of what would later be named Microraptor attached to the skeleton of a short-tailed bird, probably Yanornis.

A few years later, Czerkas published a book called Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight. In it, he and his colleagues published descriptions of some feathered dinosaur and bird fossils (as well as a couple pterosaurs). However, the discussions in some of the papers presented some odd conclusions. For example, in the paper on Scansoriopteryx, it was stated that it could not have been a theropod, due to its long third finger and apparent climbing ability. In the Cryptovolans paper, he argued that dromaeosaurs were actually birds. Overall, the whole book seemed to be championing a BAND and MANIAC position (if you don't know what these mean, consult this post).

What interests me, however, is why he began to support this position in the first place. The reason for this is that in the National Geographic "Archaeoraptor" article, Czerkas is quoted as apparently being in support of a dinosaurian origin of birds. This in turn makes me wonder if the "Archaeoraptor" fiasco might have had something to do with his change in position on this issue. Could he have been so embarrassed by the fact that the fossil he promoted was not genuine that he attempted to save himself by jumping for the opposite viewpoint? I'm only speculating here, but I think it is a possibility. Regardless of why he went the direction he did, I think it was an unfortunate turn of events. It is especially painful for me because I am a big fan of his sculptures, and I think his feathered Deinonychus are some of his most beautiful work to date. As such, I feel hit especially hard by the tragedy of Stephen Czerkas.

Blogger's Block

2011-05-06T15:15:00.000-07:00

Hey guys. I know I haven't been blogging for a while, and there have been a couple reasons for this. One of them has been that class has kept me occupied, but since I'm finishing up this semester next week that problem won't last much longer. The bigger issue I'm having is that, as the title of this post suggests, I've been having blogger's block. I'm having a hard time coming up with topics to post about. So I'm asking you, my followers, if you have any ideas. I only want to let you know that I don't cover new discoveries much, since there are many others that do that and do it better than I could. So, is there anything you want me to talk about? I'm open to suggestions.

Artificial Selection: A Solution to the Ontogeny Debate

2011-04-01T05:09:00.000-07:00

In recent years there has been much discussion and debate on whether or not some species of dinosaur from the end of the Cretaceous were distinct species or just growth stages of known species. If the argument of ontogeny is true, it would imply a lower diversity of dinosaurs at the end of their reign, thus supporting the hypothesis that dinosaurs were already on their way out at the time of their extinction. I believe that Horner and his colleagues are correct that these apparently distinct species actually belong to other, already known ones. However, I do not think ontogeny is the correct interpretation of these specimens. What is the alternative, then? Let me explain.

A while back on Tet Zoo, Darren Naish wrote a post on dinosauroids, including comments on Mike Magee's book Who Lies Sleeping? Dinosaur Heritage and the Extinction of Man. However, I now think that Darren was way too dismissive of Magee's theories. I have now taken a closer look at his ideas and find them extremely compelling, and am now a supporter of the existence of Anthroposaurus sapiens at the end of the Maastrichtian.

What does this have to do with dinosaur ontogeny and diversity? Think of it this way. In the Late Cretaceous, the Anthroposaurs, with their utter lack of respect for their environment, likely wiped out many dinosaur species through overhunting, habitat destruction, and pollution. Most of the nonsentient dinosaurs that remained would have been domesticated. And domesticated animals are extensively bred to be suited for use as food, companionship, sporting purposes, etc. Sometimes these changes can be drastic as seen in dogs. There is huge variety among the breeds of dogs. In fact, if a future paleontologist dug up a golden retriever and a bulldog side-by-side, he or she would undoubtedly think they were different genera. The artificial selective processes can also be used to increase or decrease size, also seen in dogs, as well as in other animals like horses (compare a miniature horse with a large draft horse).

With these facts in mind, it becomes blatantly obvious that many of the supposed species from the time of the dinosaurs' extinction were not separate species, nor were they ontogenetic stages, but rather were different breeds of the same species bred for different purposes by the Anthroposaurs. Dracorex and Stygimoloch were breeds of Pachycephalosaurus, Torosaurus was a breed of Triceratops, and Nanotyrannus was a miniature breed of Tyrannosaurus. The reason that no other scientist has come to this conclusion is due to the preconceived notions of the paleontological community that Anthroposaurus never existed. It is time to shed such biased points of view and look at the fossil record completely objectively. Until them, we will learn little about Anthroposaurus sapiens and the world it lived in.

Paleo Book of the Month: Dinotopia: Journey to Chandara

2011-03-26T14:01:00.000-07:00

Howdy, and welcome to March's (late) book of the month. This month we will be looking at Dinotopia: Journey to Chandara by James Gurney. I know this is a deviation from what I usually cover on this blog, as I usually focus on nonfiction books. However, I like to vary things up, and I thought it was getting a little redundant just doing scientific works.

The story, of course, takes place on the island of Dinotopia, where humans and dinosaurs (as well as many other prehistoric creatures) live together. It follows explorer Arthur Denison and his Protoceratops companion Bix, who have received an invitation to visit the mysterious city of Chandara. On the way, they encounter many other interesting animals and cultures, before finally reaching the city. Although the book is a sequel to Gurney's previous books in the series, it follows a completely new story, and you therefore are not required to have read the other books in the series to enjoy this one.

The book is, as usual, filled with Gurney's gorgeous illustrations. I believe it is these that make his world so believable, despite being pure fantasy. What is also great is the fact that Gurney is not the least bit afraid to paint feathered dinosaurs. His previous books did not have any due to there not being much direct evidence for it at the time, but in this one he eagerly siezes the opportunity to add this bit of accuracy. In fact, despite the obvious areas where you have to suspend disbelief, Dinotopia is probably one of the most accurate works of paleo-fiction as far as the dinosaurs go. Those who complain about inaccuracy of dinosaurs in fiction should find some comfort in Dinotopia.

Besides the dinosaurs, I also love Gurney's imagination when it comes to creating the different cultures that inhabit the island. This is not that surprising, as his background is in archaeology. I would describe some of them, but I'd rather let you read the book and find out for yourself.

One of the more unusual things about these books in general are that they contain many dinosaur genera that were not named until many years after the time when they take place in the late 1800s. However, I personally have found that I get so immersed with the world that it doesn't bother me, another example of Gurney's ability to suspend disbelief.

Overall, I heartily recommend Dinotopia: Journey to Chandara whether you're a newcomer to the series or an old fan like myself. Until next time!

On the Subject of Horner Bashers

2011-03-04T15:12:00.000-08:00

Oh dear, oh dear. Where do I begin? In recent years there has been an increasing trend of bashing Jack Horner on the internet over some of his ideas. This seems to have started when he first proposed that Tyrannosaurus rex was a scavenger, rather than a predator, but began to intensify after the release of Jurassic Park III. Many people were upset that he chose Spinosaurus to star in the movie and have it kill T. rex. However, things began to get really nasty after he proposed that certain dinosaurs were actually ontogenetic stages of other species (specifically the idea that Dracorex and Stygimoloch are growth stages of Pachycephalosaurus and that Torosaurus and Nedoceratops being stages of Triceratops).

These types of attacks annoy me to no end. My issue is not just with the remarks that are being made about Jack, which can be very nasty, but also the way these bashers present their disagreement with him. When you hear or read someone disputing Horner's ideas, more often than not it's something along the lines of "T. rex wasn't a scavenger" or "Dracorex isn't a juvenile Pachycephalosaurus," without actually providing evidence to back up their own claims, and usually accompanying another ad hominem attack on Jack. Whenever I read or hear these kinds of things, I feel embarassed to be a paleo fan. I simply cannot stand such closed-mindedness.

Now, to make things clear, I'm not saying Horner's propositions should be immune to criticism. On the contrary, I think they, like all scientific theories, should be placed under scrutiny. It is the way they are criticized that is important. If you are to dispute something, you need to do it with science. For example, in response to the obligate scavenger hypothesis, Thomas Holtz performed an empirical study analyzing the features that Horner claimed support his view. Similarly, Andrew Farke recently wrote a paper describing the Nedoceratops holotype and also stated some of his objections to the idea that Torosaurus is a mature Triceratops. Note that neither of these guys just posted their disagreements on some forum or made personal attacks. They actually examined the claims made and arrived at different conclusions. That's how science works. It's not about your personal preference or opinion, it's about evidence. Unfortunately, many amateurs seem to forget this.

Paleo Book of the Month: The Humongous Book of Dinosaurs

2011-02-09T12:49:00.001-08:00

Well guys, sorry I've been slacking on this feature of my blog. I went for two months without dedicating a paleo book to them. Have no fear, February of 2011 will not suffer the same fate.

This month we will be looking at The Humongous Book of Dinosaurs. And let me tell you, does it deserve that title. At 1254 pages, it's one of the longest dinosaur books in my collection. Given that it was primarily aimed at children, that's pretty impressive. Indeed, this is probably the most detailed children's book on dinosaurs I've ever come across.

The book follows an interesting format. It follows a pattern of different sections throughout the entire volume. First off is Identikit, which contains profiles of different types of dinosaur (and occasionally other prehistoric animals). One genus gets a three-page spread, while two additional genera get one page. These include various facts and statistics about the dinosaur in question. Dinosaur World, as the name suggests, focuses on the world dinosaurs lived in, often focusing on non-dinosaur groups that coexisted with their more famous peers. Giants of the Past is a two-page spread that shows an illustration containing the dinosaur species that had 3 pages dedicated to it in the previous Identikit. A paragraph of text accompanies the illustration, usually telling a story through the image. 3-D Gallery contains a 3-D image that can be viewed with a pair of glasses that come with the book. Early images feature dinosaur models, while later in the book it changes into more dynamic images that resemble Bob Bakker drawings. Spotter's Guide generally is dedicated to a certain aspect of dinosaur anatomy or biology. Time Detective surrounds various other aspects of dinosaur paleontology, such as behavior, different groups of dinosaur, or how paleontology works. History in Pictures is a two-page comic. In most of the book, each comic tells a story relating to one of the significant discoveries in paleontology, while towards the end it's a "Day in the Life" of a particular dinosaur species. Fact file contains a short quiz and various factoids. A to Z of Dinosaurs shows part of an alphabetical list of all dinosaur genera known at the time. After this, the cycle starts all over again.

Although the book is impressive for its time, it is now out of date, being published in 1997. Also, some of the illustrations seem to have been copied from other sources, which may irk some paleoart purists. Still, this was a great book for its time and contains a lot of information that most books ignore. All in all, a pretty remarkable effort.

On the Torosaurus/Triceratops "Size" Issue

2011-01-09T08:58:00.000-08:00

In discussions about Scanella and Horner's "Toroceratops" theory, there is one objection that will inevivably pop up, "But Torosaurus was smaller than Triceratops." Here I intend to adress that issue. This statement seems to stem from the measurements found in most of the old dinosaur books (and some more recent ones). In them, Triceratops is listed as being 30 feet long, while Torosaurus is said to be 25 feet. However, there is an important problem with the measurements for the latter; no complete Torosaurus skeletons have been found. Without a complete skeleton, exact measurements are impossible to take, so one has to estimate the size of an animal. That's what the sizes listed in these books are, estimates. We really do not know exactly how large Torosaurus (whether you think it's a distinct genus or a mature Triceratops) really got. So, regardless of your position in this debate, size is not a valid argument.

It is also important to remember not to take measurements in books too much to heart. In addition to some being estimates from incomplete material, size can be highly variable among individuals within a species. Even when we do have good, complete skeletons to measure, the sizes listed are still either the average or maximum length, and does not constitute every single individual. Keep that in mind during discussions regarding size.

A Brief History of Aquatic Dinosaurs (Part 2)

2010-12-03T10:03:00.001-08:00

Drawing of an aquatic Psittacosaurus by Zach Miller (used with permission).

I'm back with part 2 of my little series on aquatic dinosaurs. If you haven't read my first post, here it is. Now, let's continue.

In 1972, a specimen of Compsognathus was found with what appeared to be flippers. Named Compsognathus corallestris, it was believed to have been an aquatic member of this genus. At least one contemporary book I saw included this idea, showing two types of Compy (yes, I used that word), a terrestrial one with regular hands, and an aquatic one with flippers. However, the "flippers" have since proven to be merely an artifact of preservation. A good post at The World We Don't Live In covers this in more detail. Also in the vein of aquatic compsognathids, John Ruben (yes, that John Ruben) and his colleagues apparently suggested that Sinosauropteryx was aquatic at the 1997 SVP meeting. The abstract doesn't mention aquatic habits, but this suggestion was mentioned on Luis Rey's website. However, this was pretty clearly another attempt to discredit the dinosaur-bird connection.

More recently, a number of interesting suggestions of some dinosaurs having aquatic habits have arisen. One notable example is Bob Bakkers proposal that Ceratosaurus had aquatic habits. He based this on the distribution of shed teeth of this genus, which, at least in the Como Bluff area, were found primarily in aquatic environments, as well as the muscular build of its tail. It was even suggested that Majungasaurus was amphibious or aquatic, though Darren Naish has a post disputing this idea.

Earlier this year, a study came out arguing that, based on the isotopes of the bones, spinosaurids were semi-aquatic animals. This is not surprising, given what these animals are thought to have been eating, which was fish, and lots of it! Also, as Tracy Ford once pointed out in his Prehistoric Times column, these dinosaurs would probably have to eat large fish to sustain them, which tend to live in deep water.

Ceratopsians have experienced several aquatic suggestions this year. First off, Tracy Ford and Larry Martin have suggested in New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs that Psittacosaurus had a semi-aquatic lifestyle. They note that this is not the first time this genus was proposed to be aquatic, and list a number of papers. For more info on this idea, here's Zach Miller's thoughts and Tracy's response (also, thanks to Zach for letting me use his drawing). Another paper in that volume describing a skeleton long attributed to Anchiceratops suggests that the animal might have had a hippo-like lifestyle. Finally, the recent paper describing Koreaceratops proposes that the animal may have been aquatic as well, based on the build of the tail.. Brian Switek gives his thoughts on the latter proposition here. In addition, Ford, discussing his Psittacosaurus idea in his Prehistoric Times column, has listed several more papers proposing aquatic ceratopsians over the years.

That concludes my little series on aquatic dinosaurs. I hope you enjoyed it. As usual, if there is anything I missed, please let me know! Until next time, people.

Acronyms in the Bird Origins Debate

2010-11-26T19:24:00.000-08:00

As some of my older readers may know, I have a special interest in the origin and evolution of birds. In my research, I have noticed quite a few acronyms used to describe certain positions on this issue. They are mostly used in internet discussions, such as the DML and the blogosphere. Because I have nothing better to do at the moment, I'm going to list all the acronyms I know of, what they stand for, and what they entail, to the best of my knowledge.

ABSRD-"Anything But a Small Running Dinosaur" Applied to people who flat out reject the idea that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs.

BAD-"Birds Are Dinosaurs" Refers to the well supported and accepted idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs and in fact are a group of dinosaurs themselves.

BADD-"Birds Are Dinosaur Descendants" A slight variation of BAD.

BAND-"Birds Are Not Dinosaurs" Another, somewhat more popular, term for the few who still deny that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Closely related to, if not synonymous with, ABSRD.

BCF-"Birds Come First" George Olshevsky's hypothesis that dinosaurs are actually an offshoot of the earlier bird lineage. Darren Naish did two excellent posts on this interesting idea.

GOODD-"George Olshevsky On Dinosaur Descendants" An alternative name for BCF, in response to the fact that the original name of his hypothesis was somewhat misleading.

MANIAC-"Maniraptorans Are Not In Actuality Coelurosaurs" Easily the most notorious point of view on this list, it posits that maniraptorans are actually descended from birds, which in turn are descended from "thecodonts," crocodylimorphs, Longisquama, Megalancosaurus, etc. Thus, according to this view, maniraptorans cannot be coelurosaurs, or even dinosaurs! Not to be confused with BCF.

Well, those are all the acronyms I can think of. If I missed any, please let me know. Good day to you.

Paleo Book of the Month: Dinosaur Discoveries

2010-11-20T14:03:00.000-08:00

Hey folks. Sorry I haven't made many recent posts. College has prevented me from getting much done on here. I was able to host the Boneyard Blog Carnival, but that was only because I had a commitment to others to get that done. Don't fear, my blog is not dead. I have a number of posts planned in the near future. First of is November's Paleo Book of the month, Dinosaur Discoveries by William Stout.

I have always been a sucker for paleoart, as I'm sure most people reading this blog are. I had known about William Stout for a long time, ever since I saw his illustrations in Don Glut's Dinosaur Dictionary. However, I did not really get into his work until very recently. It was then that I decided to purchase his book.

The book is a collection of illustrations of dinosaurs, based on discoveries from the last twenty years, beginning with Albertonykus and ending with Zuniceratops. Included in the mix are dinosaurs that were discovered prior to that time, but have had new finds that shed new light on these species, examples including Herrerasaurus (originally discovered in the 1960s, but with better remains discovered in the late 80s) and Pachyrhinosaurus (with the discovery of the P. lakustai bonebed).

With each dinosaur illustration is some accompanying text which, aside from minor errors here and there, is reasonably accurate. However, the real reason this book shines, and the main reason I bought it in the first place, is of course the illustrations. As I mentioned earlier, I've become a sucker for Stout's work. While he has sometimes been criticized for not being the most accurate paleoartists, I still love his work for the overall feel it gives. His paintings have a very unique atmosphere to them, and take me back to the days when I was a little kid and was completely enthralled by dinosaurs. I also love his attention to the environments he puts his dinosaurs in. My personal favorite pictures in this book are Cryptovolans (or Microraptor, if you prefer), and an Antarctic megalosaur. In looking through these illustrations, I've noticed that Stout seems to have a thing for including swarms of pterosaurs. I don't know how realistic that is, but it sure does look cool.

In conclusion, if you're a fan of William Stout's work or paleoart in general, I highly recommend this book.

Welcome to the Boneyard 2.3!

2010-11-02T11:03:00.000-07:00

Hello there everybody! I am proud to announce that I am hosting this month's Boneyard Blog Carnival. A big, Giganotosaurus-sized thanks to everyone who submitted their posts. We have some great ones this month, so let's dig in.

First, I'll get all the egotistical stuff out of the way. For my entry, I picked Part 1 of my new series, A Brief History of Aquatic Dinosaurs. In it, I discuss the classic views of sauropods and hadrosaurs as aquatic animals, how those views came to be, and why they are no longer accepted. I also bring up Dollo's little known suggestion that Iguanodon was aquatic.

In his popular Vintage Dinosaur Art series, David Orr, from Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs, takes a look at the infamous creationist book Dinosaurs by Design by Duane Gish. He shows us a number of amusing images, including the straw man version of a pterosaur ancestor, dinosaurs getting on the Ark, and even a fire-breathing Parasaurolophus! In addition, on his other blog, Under Indiana, he gives an account of a talk he attended for National Fossil Day called Climate, Crinoids, and Carnivores.

At Punctuated Equilibrium, GrrlScientist covers yet another discovery of color in a fossil animal, this time a primitive penguin. Surprisingly, this species had more of a grey and reddish-brown color, not the black and white we usually think of. She also talks about the discovery of ancient viral DNA in extant songbirds and the seldom talked about field of paleovirology.

Over at Deep Sea News, Kevin Zelnio reports on the discovery of tiny Cambrian sea anemone fossils. The significance of these fossils, says Zelnio, is that they are well preserved enough that they actally still show their internal structures, allowing the placement on their family tree to be better understood.

Dave Hone, at Archosaur Musings, interviews Darren Tanke on the discovery of a new specimen of a young Gorgosaurus, while Darren himself describes the early stages of preparation of this fascinating find.

David Tana, of Superoceras, has submitted an oldie that tells us about a paper redescribing the enigmatic Cambrian invertebrate Nectoraris pteryx. It turns out that this animal, previously viewed as a strange sort of "squid-shrimp-fish" (is that what Al Gore's after now?) was actually a primitive cephalopod. However, he also expresses his disagreement with some of the authors' conclusions about cephalopod evolution.

On his Raptormaniacs blog, Albertonykus shows us another of his humerous cartoons about our good friends the maniraptorans. In this one, they turn pink for the Pink Dinosaur fundraiser, while showing off their knowledge of feather pigments. Our alvarezsaur friend then uses this as an opportunity to briefly elaborate on what pigments are found where, what types of animals have them, etc.

History of Geology gives a very enlightening post on the ancient cave paintings of Australia. There, David Bressan discusses the possibility of using these paintings to interpret the appearances of extinct Australian megafauna, but cautions us to give consideration to the possibility of artistic license.

Finally, Traumador the Tyrannosaur shares with us a series of old videos from his days at the Tyrell.

Again, I must thank everyone who submitted their posts. A big thanks also to David Orr for allowing me to host this month's Boneyard. I hope you all enjoyed this, and good luck to next month's host.

A Brief History of Aquatic Dinosaurs (Part 1)

2010-09-29T19:26:00.000-07:00

Painting of some aquatic Brachiosaurus by Zdenek Burian.

Well people, after my History of Feathered Dinosaur Depictions post, I have decided to write another historical essay on the study of dinosaurs. This time, I will focus on aquatic dinosaurs. The idea that some non-avian dinosaurs were aquatic (or semi-aquatic) has been proposed off and on for nearly a century and a half. Here, I have attempted to compile at least some of these ideas. Some of them will probably already be familiar to you, but I hope I can point out at least one that you haven't heard of before. Now, without further ado, let's dive in (no pun intended).

Undoubtedly the best known example of aquatic dinosaurs being proposed is the old image of sauropods and hadrosaurs. In the former case, it was once believed that sauropods were so heavy that land could not support them, so they had to remain in water. Additional lines of evidence used to support this idea were the high position of the nostrils, compared to a whale's blowhole, and their allegedly weak teeth, that could only be used to eat soft water plants. However, this idea has long been refuted. For one thing sauropod remains are often found in what were once dry paleo environments. In addition, sauropod nostrils might have actually been located near the tip of the snout after all, and it has been shown that sauropods were probably capable of eating the somewhat tougher land plants. But probably the biggest blow to the theory came when studies found that if sauropods lived their lives underwater, the immense water pressure would have collapsed their lungs, preventing them from breathing. After all, what good are nostrils on top of your head if you can't breath from them?

With regards to the alleged aquatic hadrosaurs, this seems to have started after a mummified hadrosaur was found with some skin between the fingers that was interpreted as webbing. Also, like the sauropods, the teeth were thought to have been weak and only good for eating water plants. Finally, the tail was thought to have been good for swimming to to its flat shape. This idea, too, has been thoroughly debunked. The "webbing" was just an artifact of mummification, the teeth were strong enough for tough plants, and the tail was actually very stiff. For a more detailed discussion of both of these old ideas, I recommend The Dinosaur Heresies.

A lesser known instance of aquatic dinosaurs being suggested came from Louis Dollo in which he suggested that Iguanodon was an aquatic animal. His lines of evidence were very similar to those put forward for hadrosaurs, mainly the build of the tail and observations of a "webbing" between the digits. In addition, he attempted to explain why these dinosaurs had a bipedal stance, as opposed to the quadrapedal stance of the crocodiles he was comparing them to. Unfortunately, I have been unable to encounter much more information on this hypothesis, as Dollo only devoted a brief passage in one of his papers describing this interpretation.

There is quite a bit more I want to cover, and I feel it is too long for one post, so stay tuned for Part 2!

Paleo Book of the Month: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs

2010-09-19T19:44:00.000-07:00

Hello everyone. Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I recently went back to school and have been extremely busy. Now that I'm back, let's get going with September's Paleo Book of the Month. This month, I'm going retro and reviewing The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs by David Norman. This is a book I'm sure most of you are familiar with, and indeed I'm willing to bet you probably own it. Written in 1988 (I think), it was probably one of the most popular books on dinosaurs for the next ten years or so. The encyclopedia covered the various groups of dinosaurs that were recognized at the time. In addition to the text, most sections followed a specific format. The first spread of pages would show an anachronistic illustration by John Sibbick of some representatives of each group, as well as a map showing the distribution of the major known genera of said group, a cladogram, and a timeline. The following spread contained illustrations of skeletons and bones, followed by a couple of pages showing photos and some miscellaneus illustrations. In addition, there were also sections covering some of the controversies of dinosaur science and a brief overview of some other prehistoric life.

Unfortunately, having been published over twenty years ago, this book is pretty outdated in some places. For one thing, some of the classification has not held up (i.e. Coelophysis is a coelurosaur, tyrannosaurs are carnosaurs, Triceratops is related to centrosaurs). In addition, John Sibbick's illustrations are quite inaccurate by today's standards. For instance, the raptors are featherless, all theropods have pronated hands, and some even show dinosaurs with dragging tails.

Still, despite being obsolete, The Illustrated Encyclopedia deserves to be well remembered. It was a highly influential book on the subject of dinosaurs, and was one of the key things that fed my early interest in the subject. In addition, it was a great dinosaur book for its time, and the information would have been considered top notch when it was first published. For it's influence and nostalgia, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs is without a doubt a classic.

The Great Fossil Find: How Middle School Science Class Taught Me the Importance of Corresponding with Others

2010-08-18T14:14:00.000-07:00

When I was in eighth grade, my science class did a little activity called The Great Fossil Find. It was one of those activities done early in the year to teach the students about the nature of science. To summarize, we were assigned to different groups, and were required to pull a certain number of random "fossil bones" (actually paper cutouts) out of an envelope and try to figure out what type of animal they belonged to. In addition to discussion among the group, we were also required to consult other groups, see what they "uncovered," and see if they shared our conclusion. In the end, most of us were able to figure out that we had a pterosaur (although I figured that out as soon as my group found the wing finger). However, there was one group that did not come to this conclusion. They believed they had some sort of aquatic creature. As it just so happened, this was the only group that did not consult the other students.

Although I didn't seriously think about this until somewhat later, this incident taught me an important lesson about working as a scientist. That day, I learned that you can't do all the work by yourself. For one thing, there are the obvious implications of the importance of peer review. While not a perfect system, peer review does allow your work and ideas to be scrutinized by other scientists who might not have the same interpretations as you, or might know something you don't. In addition to that, this activity taught me how important it is to look at other specimens, which might be more complete or have different parts preserved. While these lessons I learned might seem obvious to those who are scientifically literate, the way I learned these was very special to me. I am eternally grateful for that group who was wrong.

Paleo Book of the Month: Lone Star Dinosaurs

2010-08-13T12:06:00.000-07:00

Well folks, I'm back with August's book of the month. This month's pick is Lone Star Dinosaurs by Louis Jacobs. Ever since my family moved to Texas about five years ago, I have been fascinated by the fossils found in my resident state. I purchased this book about a month after we moved, and it was my first real source on the paleontology of the Lone Star State.

Lone Star Dinosaurs is not a particularly long book, only having 160 pages and five chapters, but sandwiched between the covers is a wealth of information. The first chapter introduces the reader to the subject of paleontology, along with a brief overview of the early paleontology of Texas. The following three chapters focus on the main areas and time periods of Texas dinosaurs. The first of these discusses the late Triassic fossils found in the panhandle. Following is an overview of the early-mid Cretaceous fossils of north central Texas. Next, the book talks about the dinosaurs that have been found in Big Bend. The final chapter discusses the extinction of the dinosaurs and also touches upon their relationship to birds.

The only downside to this book is that it is somewhat dated by today's standards. This is no surprise, given that it was published in 1995. To give some examples, some Triassic animals, such as Technosaurus and Shuvosaurus, are identified as dinosaurs that are now known to be more different types of archosaurs. Certain species have been named since the book was written, and since are not identified by any scientific name (for example, Protohadros is simply referred to as a hadrosaur), and others have been renamed (such as Agujaceratops and Paluxysaurus). A little bit of outdated information aside, I would highly recommend Lone Star Dinosaurs to anyone interested in the dinosaurs that have been found in Texas. It is truly an important work in the paleontology of this interesting state.

Some Thoughts on the Torosaurus/Triceratops Paper

2010-08-06T09:20:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I've had a bad case of blogger's block. Anyway, I now have found a topic, so let's dig in. As I'm sure you all know, there has been a huge buzz all over the internet over John Scanella and Jack Horner's new paper arguing that Torosaurus is just a fully mature growth stage of Triceratops. When I first found out about this, I was actually rather upset. Torosaurus had always been my favorite ceratopsian, and was sad to see that it might get lumped. Unfortunately, something being your favorite is not a valid scientific argument, so I decided to be objective and wait for the paper to come out so I could see what they said. I was happy to find out that the paper was being published in JVP, a jounal I am subscribed to. Although I could easily have read the paper when it came out online, I preferred to wait for my physical copy to arrive. This is why I'm kind of late to the party, so to speak. Anyway, enough of that, let's get on with it.

Since the arguments of the paper have already been covered on other blogs, I'm not going to beat a dead ceratopsian and go over them. Rather, I want to share some of my afterthoughts on the paper. First off, I want to say I think they make a pretty convincing case for the two genera being synonymous. However, it does leave me with a few lingering questions. First off, the authors propose that Nedoceratops might represent a transitional stage between the young adult Triceratops morph and the adult "Torosaurus" morph, citing the existence of a small fenestra in the parietal. While this is certainly possible, what they fail to mention the holotype of Nedoceratops also has an opening in the squamosal, something neither form has (image here). To me, this calls into question their interpretation of this genus. Isn't it possible that the holes in the frill of this specimen are pathological? Or maybe this really is a separate species that has developed a squamosal fenestra. I also find it suspicious that the horns of Nedoceratops are positioned quite differently from either Triceratops or "Torosaurus", the former having brow horns that are more vertically oriented, as opposed to the more forward facing horns of the latter two. I feel more research needs to be done on this particular specimen before any conclusive statements on its identity can be made.

That being said, I have a couple other thoughts from reading this paper. First, the authors suggest that Triceratops was largely paedomorphic (retaining juvenile characteristics) throughought much of its life before finally developing the fully mature "Torosaurus" features, such as a narrow squamosal and a fenestrated frill. However, I would like to know if other juvenile chasmosaurines had similar features seen in the classic Triceratops image, namely a wide squamosal and unfenestrated frill, which would support this interpretation. Second, I recently acquired the highly anticipated New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs, and among the papers in it is one on combat positions in chasmosaurines. Included in the study is a comparison of the two basic morphs of Triceratops known at the time the paper was submitted, and how they would have fared in combat against each other. Now, with this new paper, it would be interesting if the authors could include the "Torosaurus" morph in their study and see how a more mature individual would fare against a younger one.

In conclusion, Scanella and Horner's new paper is very interesting and, to my mind, pretty convincing in the case it makes. While I think more work needs to be done, this is overall a very exciting discovery, and I am nowhere near as upset as I used to be, and am looking forward to future discoveries in this field.

Paleo Book of the Month: Mammoths: Giants of the Ice Age

2010-07-13T21:05:00.000-07:00

Sorry I'm a little late with the Book of the Month. July has proven busy for me. I had my birthday on the fifth (I'm now 19, if anyone's wondering), and got a couple new dinosaur books which I've been caught up in reading. I plan on using them in future Book of the Month features. Then I was preparing for my summer class, which got cancelled at the last minute due to low enrollment! Anyway, I'm back and ready to introduce July's book of the month, Mammoths: Giants of the Ice Age by Adrian Lister and Paul Bahn.

This is a bit of an odd choice, as I usually don't cover Cenozoic topics on this blog. However, this book is just too good to ignore. The chapters are well organized and cover a number of interesting topics. The first chapter covers the origin and evolution of the mammoths, from their roots in Africa to their eventual spread to other parts of the world and subsequent diversification. The next chapter focuses on the various discoveries of mammoth remains, including the famous frozen carcasses. Following is a chapter on the natural history and biology of mammoths, including their behavior, diet, and other things. The next chapter on the relationships between mammoths and early human culture is very interesting, discussing artifacts made of mammoth parts and artistic depictions of these animals. The final chapter covers the extinction of the mammoths, examining the main theories and also using this as an opportunity to talk about the evidence for humans hunting mammoths, which is actually less extensive than we are often led to believe.

In conclusion, Mammoths is a very interesting book and a must for anyone interested in mammoths.

Dinosaurs of the Southwest: McLaughlin's Inspiration?

2010-06-24T13:35:00.000-07:00

Greetings once again my loyal followers. A while back, there was a post at The World We Don't Live In blog called "McLaughlin's Marvelous Menagerie," showing some of the illustrations to John McLaughlin's book Archosauria: A New Look at the Old Dinosaur, as well as commenting on some of the strange ideas that lay within. I noted in a comment how I had seen a couple of these ideas before in a book called Dinosaurs of the Southwest by Ronald Ratkevich. As a patron of outdated dinosaur books, I check out the latter occasionally to see what kinds of things are said. It includes unusual claims about Stegosaurus defense posture and ceratopsian frills very similar to those found in McLaughlin's book. The other day, when I was at the library, I picked up the book again and this time noticed something I had overlooked before; John McLaughlin was the illustrator of this book. What is more, the book was actually published in 1976, three years before Archosauria. This has led me to the possibility that some of McLaughlin's ideas in his book were not entirely his own, and that at least some of them were actually Ratkevich's, and that McLaughlin simply bought into them and used them in his book.

In addition to the ideas expressed by McLaughlin, the book has a number of other very strange claims. One of them I can not describe in my own words, you'll just have to read it for yourself.

A distinction is made between being killed and eaten because of the dinosaurs' regenerative capabilities. A large portion of their anatomy, a complete limb or a tail, for example, could be wrenched off the body by a predator and, if given enough time, grow back, complete with new bones and a fresh network of nerves. Modern reptiles which regenerate lost appendages usually end up only with a numb stump, a rather sorry substitute for the original.

Umm... okay. In addition to that, the book uses the name Antrodemus instead of Allosaurus. In addition, there is also a very strange error where a photo of a Chasmosaurus skeleton is identified in the caption as Barosaurus.

Understandably , this book has gained some notoriety for its strangeness. Greg Paul has even referred to it as "Easily one of the worst books on dinosaurs." Perhaps it is, but if you're interested in strange and outdated ideas in paleontology and happen to come across it in a library or something, you might as well check it out. You might even get a little laugh.

A Sampling of My Musical Tastes

2010-06-21T14:34:00.000-07:00

Hello there everyone. I thought I'd share a little bit about myself with you guys. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am a big time music lover, but it is really hard to put my musical taste into words, except that I am a rabid metalhead. So here's a sample of some of my favorite songs by some of my favorite bands. Enjoy (or hate, depending on your own taste). And don't worry, I've got some upcoming paleo posts as well.

Paleo Book of the Month: Dinosaurs and Other Mesozoic Reptiles of California

2010-06-01T13:01:00.000-07:00

Well people, I'm back for another Paleo Book of the Month. This month's pick is Dinosaurs and Other Mesozoic Reptiles of California by Richard P. Hilton*. As a former California resident, I am highly interested in the fossils of my old home state. However, dinosaur fossils are extremely rare in that part of the country, mainly because it was mostly underwater during the Mesozoic era. However, this book thoroughly documents the few, but very fascinating, dinosaur discoveries in Golden State. Among the most numerous are remains of hadrosaurs, as well as the ankylosaur Aletopelta. In addition, the somewhat more numerous fossils from Baja California are covered, incluing the remains attributed to Lambeosaurus and the theropod Labocania.

As the title implies, other Mesozoic reptiles are also discussed in the book. The fragmentary remains of pterosaurs and Mesozoic birds are covered. Since California was largely under the sea at the time, much of the book is dedicated to discussing the marine reptiles found in the California sediments. These include ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, and turtles.

In addition to its coverage of the fossils of California, Hilton also talks about the many people who have helped discover these fossils. One of the most interesting is a guy named Chad Staebler, whose incredible aptitude for finding fossils has led to suspicion of him having a built in "fossil radar."

All in all, Dinosaurs and Other Mesozoic Reptiles of California is a fascinating book about the findings in a relatively underappreciated state for fossils.

*As a little aside, when my family still lived in California and my dad was going back to college to get his science teaching credential, Dick Hilton was his geology teacher.

The Worst Paleo Blog Ever!

2010-05-21T08:30:00.000-07:00

Seriously, is this a joke? I could go on and on ranting about this blog, but to really comprehend it's absurdity you need to just see it for yourself. Tell me what you think.

The offending blog.

Paleo Book of the Month: Dinosaur Imagery

2010-05-11T15:18:00.000-07:00

Greetings people of the internet. It is time for May's book of the month. This month's pick is Dinosaur Imagery. The book is a collection of paleo art from the collection of John Lanzendorf, an art collector whose name has been given to an award routinely given out by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. It features excellent paleo art by greats such as Michael Skrepnick, John Sibbick, Greg Paul, Stephen Czerkas, Luis Rey, David Krentz, and many others. However, the icing on the awsomeness cake comes with the written commentaries by some of the worlds leading paleontologists, including Thomas Holtz, Kevin Padian, Peter Dodson, Scott Sampson, and others. In addition to talking about the artwork, these commentaries also give information about the dinosaurs they depict.

The only real downside to this book is that, since it was published in 2000, little bits and pieces might be slightly out of date. For instance, there are only two depictions of feathered dinosaurs in this book, since many of the fossils were only just discovered and the concept was still pretty new. However, this is only a minor gripe and Dinosaur Imagery is overall a wonderful book that I heartily recommend to all paleo art fans.

My Digging Experience

2010-04-27T16:39:00.000-07:00

Hi there everyone. Sorry I haven't been posting lately. I've been pretty busy lately, especially with college. I'm nearing the end of the semester and have to get ready for finals. But I'm sure you don't follow my blog to hear me bitching about college, so on to the topic of this post: my dig at the Arlington Archosaur Site.

To give you a little background, the Arlington Archosaur Site (or AAS) is a fossil site in Arlington, Texas, about an hour or so where I live. It dates to about 95 MYA and is part of the Woodbine Formation. It got its name because dinosaurs and crocodiles, both archosaurs, have been found there. The primary dinosaur fossils found there are the remains of a primitive hadrosaur, likely Protohadros, as well as some scrappy theropod material. In addition to archosaurs, the remains of turtles, fish, and fossilized logs have been found there. The dig is headed by Derek Main, a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Arlington, who is working on this site for his dissertation. The site openly accepts volunteers, so how could I resist?

I spent most of my time digging at a hillside with a trowel. Unfortunately, I didn't find anything, though some of the diggers, many of whome were Main's students being blackmailed with grades, did. One guy found a crocodile tooth, a couple ladies found a small jumble of crocodile bones, and another guy found pieces of a turtle shell. What's especially cool about the latter find is that when one of the pieces was compared to another piece found previously, when they put them together it was a perfect fit. Overall, I had a really good time, and it makes me feel fortunate to have an important fossil site so close to home. Until next time people.

Paleo Book of the Month: The Dinosaur Hunters

2010-04-08T16:20:00.000-07:00

Hello again. I have decided to add a new feature to my blog; the Paleo Book of the Month. Basically, early on in each month, I will make a post about a book relating to paleontology. In addition to nonfiction books dealing specifically with paleontology, it can also can include works of fiction. In addition, nonfiction books that aren't specifically about paleontology yet still relevant to the field might also be covered. I will also try to stick to books that don't get covered that much. For example, Thomas Holtz's Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages, while an excellent book, has already gotten its fair share of loving. Now, without further ado, let's begin.

This month's pick is The Dinosaur Hunters: The Extraordinary Story of the Men and Women Who Discovered Prehistoric Life. The book is written by Lowell Dingus, with Mark Norell as the consultant editor. It comes in a slipcase made to look like a fossil crate, while the book itself has a picture of the famous fossl of an oviraptorid sitting on its eggs on the front cover, while the back cover looks like the bottom of the box the fossil is contained in, with the word "FRAGILE" on it. The book itself is about the basic history of paleontology, mainly dinosaur study. The book begins with the very earliest discoveries in paleontology, and ends with discussion of Jurassic Park. Also included are short bios of the people involved in these discoveries. While these are all fascinating, what really makes the book special is the fact that throughout it are reproductions of old documents from these times. These include everything from personal letters to field notes to scientific papers. While some of them are not easily read, they do give the feeling of actually being at that time when these discoveries were being made. Overall, The Dinosaur Hunters is a very interesting, unique book, and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in the history of dinosaur study.

Turns out Birds are Not Dinosaurs After All!

2010-04-01T14:09:00.000-07:00

It seems the dinosaur origin of birds that I have come to know and love is wrong after all! I can't believe it! This new evidence is so convincing. Take a look.

Crocodilians: Another Archosaurian Love Affair

2010-03-25T17:41:00.000-07:00

If you've been reading my blog a while, you might have noticed that I have a major interest in both dinosaurs and birds. However, these are far from the only groups of animals that fascinate me. Crocodilians, another major group of archosaurs, also tug at my heartstrings (although you probably figured that out from the title).

My interest in these reptiles goes back a long way. I think it all got started in the summer of 1997, when, while at a family reunion in Georgia, my parents bought me a small, beany alligator, which I still have to this day. Since then, crocodilians have been among my favorite reptiles. When I went to Australia in 1999, I learned much about the native wildlife, among them was the saltwater crocodile. I even got the chance to see a very large saltie (the Australian slang term for the creature) in captivity. (As an interesting sidenote, this individual was called "Jack the Ripper" because he had killed every female they had tried to get him to mate with.) In fifth grade, I even got the chance to touch an alligator (restrained of course).

As you can see, crocodilians and I go back a long way. I cannot adequately describe my interest in them in one post. There is just too much about them that is fascinating. However, I will share a few points. First, they are relatively closely related to dinosaurs and their avian descendents, so it does seem natural that I like them so much. Also, they have a very good fossil record, which has revealed some very interesting forms. These include the massive Deinosuchus, as well as various bizarre species such as Kaprosuchus "BoarCroc, Araripesuchus "RatCroc," etc. I also have a lot of respect for theme as predators, and have found out that the larger species of crocodile are known to attack humans without provocation.

As I mentioned earlier, there is too much interesting stuff on crocodilians for one post. However, if you want to learn more, here is an excellent website on these amazing animals. Until next time, take care.

What I Like Other Than Paleontology.

2010-03-13T09:20:00.000-08:00

Greetings my loyal followers. It's no secret that my passion is paleontology. However, it is far from my only interest. My other interests span a wide variety of topics. After all, as much as I love paleo, it would be boring if that was all I ever studied. So without further ado, here are my other interests.

When it comes to my more academic interests, I am very interested in biology, particularly zoology. I'm especially fascinated in reptiles and birds, which isn't really surprising, as those are the dinosaurs' closest living relatives. I'm also interested in geology, which again is not surprising. When it comes to sciences not directly related to paleo, my favorite would have to be astronomy. To be honest, I'm normally not very interested in the physical sciences, but astronomy hooks me for some reason. When it comes to non-sciencey but still intellectual interests, I love history, particularly anciend and medieval (I find most history after that kind of boring). One of my favorite historical topics is the Vikings. I find it amazing how misunderstood they are. For example, real Viking helmets did not have horns. If you think about it, that would have been very impractical. Mythology is another subject I hold close to my heart. My favorite is, not surprisingly, Norse, although I also like Greek, Celtic, and pretty much any other European mythology.

I also have many interests that are more for fun. I'm a huge Star Wars fanatic. While I love the movies, my real love is the Expanded Universe, which includes the novels, video games, comics, and other official media that expands the mythos. I'm also really into the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien, although regrettably, I have yet to sit down and read The Lord of the Rings, being so busy. Another great love of mine is music. In particular, I'm a rabid metalhead. I'm especially partial to the more melodic and epic subgenres that tend to be more popular in Europe, such as power, symphonic, and folk metal. I also enjoy the more classic bands such as Iron Maiden. My favorite band is Blind Guardian. In addition to metal, I also enjoy rock, classical, film soundtracks, folk, and Weird Al Yankovic. I also play bass guitar.

Well people, I hope this has allowed you to know more about me. I do have still more interests, but if I were to state them all, I'd have a novel. These are just the ones I'm most passionate about. See you later people (and dinosaur).

The History of Feathered Dinosaur Depictions

2010-02-26T10:16:00.000-08:00

Feathered dinosaurs. This is a term that is now taken for granted in most paleontology circles. Numerous superb fossils from Liaoning, China have confirmed that these fascinating integuments are not restricted to birds, and recent discoveries of color in some fossils have allowed them to make headlines once again. However, long before these fossils were discovered, there had been a great deal of speculation on this possibility. Indeed, illustrations of dinosaurs with feathers are actually not new. They have only become more prevalant as the fossil record continued to yield its secrets. This is what I'm here to talk about.

With the discovery of Deinonychus and the beginning of the Dinosaur Renaissance, the theory of birds being the living descendants of dinosaurs faced a resurgance after nearly four decades of being dismissed. With this revival, some artists began to speculate on the possibility of some dinosaurs also having feathers. The first illustration to depict a feathered dinosaur was Sarah Landry's depiction of "Syntarsus" (original image can be found here) in Bob Bakker's 1975 article "Dinosaur Renaissance." Soon others caught on to this idea. Not long after Landry's illustration was published, a few more artists began to catch on to the craze. Greg Paul soon made many illustrations with feathered theropods, many of which appeared in his 1988 classic Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Drawings of feathered Deinonychus appeared in Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies, and John McLoughlin's Archosauria: A New Look at the Old Dinosaur featured feathered coelurosaurs (yet strangely, a bald dromaeosaur). However, this artwork was still the exception to the rule, as scaly dinosaurs still prevailed in most illustrations. Understandably, the reconstructions that did have feathers, were highly controversial. Alan Feduccia, in his 1996 book The Origin and Evolution of Birds, was especially critical, saying that feathers are exclusive to birds.

With the discovery of feathered dinosaurs such as Sinosauropteryx and Sinornithosaurus, it was realized that some dinosaurs did have feathers after all. However, artists were initially still pretty conservative about depicting dinosaurs with feathers, and only put feathers on those dinosaurs that were known to have them. But slowly, this idea began to catch on, and now feathered theropods, particularly coelurosaurs, have become the standard in paleoart. And personally, I think they look a lot cooler now.

A Quick Update

2010-02-20T11:39:00.000-08:00

Hello people of the innerweb (dangit, I've been reading Traumador's blog too much), I just want to give a little update on my plans and future of this blog. First, I have given up trying to make a series on bird evolution. It's a topic I find especially fascinating with so much to say, so just expect it to be a common theme. Second, I have a couple of posts planned, so be expecting them in the near future:

The History of Feathered Dinosaur Depictions
What I Like Besides Paleontology

Well, that's about it. I said this would be quick. Well, bye.

Ground Up or Trees Down? (Bird Evolution Part 2)

2010-02-05T08:42:00.000-08:00

A while back I made a post on "Protoavis" and said it would be part one of a series on bird evolution. Unfortunately, that series went on hiatus as I wanted to become more informed for this next post. Now that I feel more confident in my knowledge, I am ready to continue this series.

When it comes to the evolution of birds, arguably the most contentious issue is the origin of flight. There have generally been two competing camps, those who argued that flight evolved from the ground up, and those who argued it evolved from the trees down. These hypotheses have many variations, but can still be boiled down to two basic premises. The ground up hypothesis argues that the ancestors of birds ran on the ground and used their primitive wings (or predecessors of wings) to increase their speed or increase the distance of their leaps. Over time, this behavior evolved into true flight. The trees down hypothesis states that the protobirds were tree climbers who used their feathers to glide from tree to tree. Eventually, the bird ancestors started flapping to increase the distance of thier glides, and this is what led to true flight.

For many years there was a pretty strong dichotomy among scientists over these competing ideas. Scientists who argued that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs tended to advocate the ground up hypothesis, while those who favored a "thecodont" ancestry for birds tended to prefer the trees down. Now that the evidence supporting a dinosaurian ancestry for birds is very, very strong, some have argued that this indicates a ground up origin for flight. However, scientists have contended that some small theropods, such as Microraptor, were arboreal. Larry Martin has even tried to argue that the alleged arboreality of Microraptor disproves the theory of birds being descended from dinosaurs, which is of course absurd.

There are pretty strong objections to both of these hypotheses. Objections to the ground up hypothesis generally revolve around issues of drag and working against gravity. A common objection to the trees down hypothesis is that thereopod dinosaurs do not have any major adaptations for an arboreal lifestyle.

One interesting discovery in this field is Wing Assisted Incline Running (WAIR). Ken Dial, a zoologist at the University of Montana, has found that young birds (and even adults) will flap their wings to help propel themselves up steep inclines. This could provide valuable insight into how flight evolved.

So, which is it? I am convinced that it is not as simple as ground up vs trees down. Many scientists now agree that ground up vs trees down is a false dichotomy, and the question is no longer whether flight evolved on the ground or in the trees, but which traits of flight evolved on the ground and which in the trees. I'm keeping an open mind about this and look forward to future discoveries.

Colorful Dinosaurs- Implications for the Future

2010-01-28T17:15:00.000-08:00

If you're reading this then chances are you have already read the news about fossilized pigments and how for the first time we can determine the probable color of a few feathered dinosaurs. Let me say I am absolutely thrilled by this discovery. I remember being practically raised under the notion that we'll never know the true color of dinosaurs. Now, with this new discovery, it turns out we can (well, at least with a few well preserved feathered specimens). This has really got me thinking about how little we actually know about dinosaurs and paleontology in general.

As I just mentioned, this would have been considered an impossibility a couple decades ago. At the same time, most scientists were not receptive to the idea of dinosaurs having feathers. That idea was, as Darren Naish put it, "speculation limited to controversial artwork." But eventually feathered dinosaurs were found, forcing us to accept the unthinkable. The point is that we never know what we'll discover. We seem to think we know all possibilities, yet new discoveries are revealing things we never imagined. This, in my opinion, is one of the things that makes science so exciting.

Nitpicking with Dinosaurs

2010-01-20T11:07:00.000-08:00

I have hinted in the past about how people have a tendency to nitpick TV documentaries about dinosaurs. While at times I can understand it, such as the CotD drama, most of the time it just annoys me. Nowhere is this feeling more prevalant than the criticisms of Walkin with Dinosaurs. Pretty much everyone knows how the series was criticized for presenting "speculation as fact." While I'm not surprised about critics saying this, as they will find anything to criticize as long as it gets people to read their reviews, it bothers me more that many scientifically minded people also peddled out similar complaints. Mostly they seem to complain about how they disagree with some of the depictions or behaviors, finding them implausible. Having those thoughts is fine, but I think it would be more productive to use that as an opportunity to debate, rather than bash an overall well-made TV series. In addition, the makers of WWD have pointed out that such criticism "overlooked the main objective of the series, which was not to present an academic thesis, but to bring prehistory to life." Some speculation was necessary to make the animals more interesting. Frankly it would be rather unrealistic to just show the dinosaurs standing around while the narrator gave out technical information. I'm not denying that some bits of WWD have turned out to be wrong, such as cannibalism in Coelophysis, but that is just how science progresses. We live and learn. And overall, I have not been able to find a great deal of errors in WWD aside from slightly outdated ideas here and there.

Another program that has come under a great deal of fire is Jurassic Fight Club. Many people pointed out inaccuracies and complained about the large amount of speculation. I can understand some of the criticism (I still get bothered by bald raptors), but again, the main purpose was lost to many. As Prehistoric Times magazine put it, "It's not science class... it's entertainment." That I think well describes many of the programs on TV. Their main purpose is to entertain. Another thing that often gets overlooked is the fact that these programs are great at promoting paleontology to the general public. For instance, WWD was extremely vital to the growth of my passion for paleontology in my later childhood. The programs can inspire people to check out more information. Besides, if one really is looking for accuracy, they should look to books or the more reputable websites, but documentaries are a good launch pad. I'm not excusing the shameful dishonesty and unrealistic speculations of the CotD producers, but that's a whole other story.

What really gets under my skin, however, is when people start nitpicking movies and pointing out all the inaccuracies. Well, what did you expect? Films are meant to entertain, even moreso than tv specials. I never rag on a movie just because of some inaccuracies. As long as it's entertaining, I'll enjoy it. Sometimes you have to give your knowledgeable side a rest and let your imagination take over.

Overall, I think many such criticisms are counterproductive and make scientists seem like arrogant snobs. I take no pleasure in saying that, for I respect and admire many of these people and enjoy their blogs. As my online friend and fellow blogger Raptor Lewis has said, people are "TOO up-tight about the Science!"

Read my first paper!

2010-01-19T16:33:00.000-08:00

Hey guys. I know it's been a while since I last posted, but there haven't been many things on my mind. That has now changed, since I have just read my first scientific paper! I had been afraid to read a technical paper out of fear that it would be too overwhelming. It turns out it wasn't that hard. I actually enjoyed reading it, and learned a good deal. If you're wondering what this mystery paper is, let me tell you. It was Farke et al's "Evidence of Combat in Triceratops." I would put a link, but PLoS ONE is currently undergoing mantainence. I'll just edit the post when that's done.

EDIT: Here you go.

Why is it all about geology?

2010-01-05T13:38:00.000-08:00

I've been wanting to talk about something that has really been bothering me for a long time. You've probably noticed that paleontology is frequently associated with geology. However, the amount of biology used in paleontology is often ignored. Why?

I'm not saying geology isn't important to paleontology, which it most certainly is. After all, knowing which rocks to find fossils in, stratigraphy, sedimentation, etc. are all areas of geology, and are crucial to any paleontologist. But do you hear anything about biology? No you don't. This puzzles me, as there are many areas of biology are also very important in the discipline. Things like anatomy and taxonomy are parts of biology, not to mention evolution. Evolution! The most important theory in biology, is also the cornerstone of paleontology.

I understand it's not always like this. There are a number of paleontologists who do work for biology departments, and some paleontologists, such as Kevin Padian, Neil Shubin, and the late Stephen Jay Gould, are also evolutionary biologists. Overall though, it seems geology gets all the attention, which I think is unfair.

I admit my opinion is probably biased, as I've always been most interested in the biological aspects of paleontology and am a biology student. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy geology, but I just wish paleontology could be seen as not just a branch of geology, but as the unique, interdisciplinary field that it is.

Looking back on 2009

2009-12-31T11:36:00.000-08:00

I want to start off by saying I hope you had a great Christmas. I sure did. Interestingly, I only got two paleo related gifts this year. One was the John Long's book Feathered Dinosaurs. The other was the Discovery Channel Essential Dinosaur Pack. I know some might go "eww" after this CotD fiasco, but this collection is from before CotD was even made. Besides, these documentaries are among the more informative and accurate ones that Discovery has put out. Besides these things, I got several Star Wars related gifts, a few new CDs, and a Tolkien calendar.

With that out of the way, I would like to take this time to reflect on some of the discoveries made in paleontology this year. This has been an especially good year for tyrannosaurs. Four new species have been discovered; Xiongguanlong baimoensis, Raptorex kriegsteini, Sinotyrannus kazuoensis, and Alioramus altai. In addition, Proceratosaurus bradleyi was reclassified as a tyrannosauroid. There was also the discovery that juvenile tyrannosaurs fought each other.

Aside from tyrannosaurs, a number of other interesting discoveries have been made. These include new species such as the long-necked stegosaur Miragaia longicollum, the transitional theropod Tawa hallae, and the advanced prosauropod Aardonyx celestae. In addition to dinosaurs, there was also the discovery of the pterosaur Darwinopterus modularis, and the over-hyped but still interesting primate Darwinius masillae, or Ida. Speaking of which, this year was also the Charles Darwin's 200th birthday. Finally, this year was also the year in which Horner and Goodwin published their paper on pachycephalosaur ontogeny (I plan on posting my thoughts on this idea in the near future).

All in all, 2009 was a good year for paleontology, and I look forward to what next year will bring. Until then, have a Happy New Year!

An old dinosaur documentary from my childhood.

2009-12-21T14:41:00.000-08:00

When I was a very little kid, a four-part documentary series about dinosaurs was aired on PBS. My interest in dinosaurs was just starting to take root, and my parents decided to tape it. I watched it religiously, eating up hours upon hours of my childhood. It was a major driving force in my early passion for paleontology.

As luck would have it, I came across three of the episodes on Google Video (the first episode, unfortunately, was unavailable for some reason). I have posted them here for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy.

Tethyshadros- A cool new hadrosaur

2009-12-17T11:03:00.000-08:00

Now for a more positive post. Recently, the discovery of a new hadrosaur was anounced. Named Tethyshadros insularis, it is one of the most complete dinosaur skeletons ever found. Even more amazing than its completeness was the location in which it was found; Italy. Seriously, that is one of the last countries I would expect such a fossil to be found in. Then again, it's also where the superb fossil of Scipionyx was found. In fact, Tethyshadros is the second dinosaur named from Italy (not including "Saltriosaurus," which is a nomen nudum).

In addition to it's completeness, another neat feature about this dinosaur is its size. It is only about 13 feet long. This was probably caused by island dwarfism. In fact, it is the second hadrosaur that appears to exhibit such a feature, the other being Telmatosaurus. Tethyshadros got its name because it would have lived on an island in the Tethys Sea, and ancient sea that separated the northern and southern continents.

Above is the phylogenetic tree used by the describers of this new species. Let me take this time to say that I love phylogenetic trees. I find it fascinating to see the evolutionary relationships of different organisms, but I digress.

I just wanted to share what I consider to be a very cool new discovery. I can't help but feel like I don't give hadrosaurs enough attention, given what a fascintating group they really are. And Tethyshadros is no exception.

My thoughts on this Clash of the Dinosaurs drama.

2009-12-17T09:51:00.000-08:00

If you've been keeping up with the paleo blogosphere, you would know by now that some bloggers are pretty upset with the way Matt Wedel was "quote mined" in an episode. What happened was he was made out to appear like he endorsed the outdated "second brain" idea. Personally, I really don't know what to think about this issue. I do not like the fact that Wedel's interview was taken out of context and I can truly sympathize with him. I wish the company could have given more of an apology to him. I am saddened by this. Why couldn't they have just left that bit out of the show? I am just shocked. If they just left it out it could have been a good show.

Clash of the Dinosaurs- My thoughts

2009-12-08T16:32:00.000-08:00

Last Sunday I got to watch the new Discovery Channel show Clash of the Dinosaurs. Personally, I rather enjoyed it. For one thing, the CGI was quite good. I was especially impressed with the Deinonychus, which were fully feathered. The premise was quite interesting. Rather than being Discovery Channel's response to Jurassic Fight Club, as some had speculated, this show actually covered different aspects of dinosaur life, with emphasis on their internal structure, especially their brains. There were many prominent paleontologists interviewed, including Bob Bakker, Thomas Holtz, Ken Carpenter, Lawrence Witmer, as well as a couple less prominent ones, such as Matt Wedel, the original describer of Sauroposeidon. The first episode primarily focused on the lives of young dinosaurs. The second talked about Tyrannosaurus, Deinonychus, and even Quetzalcoatlus and what made them such good predators. Overall, it is a pretty cool and interesting show.

I do have a few very minor gripes. There are a number of ideas presented that are quite speculative. However, I am able to forgive that because speculation is really part of the whole scientific process. Too many people seem to think that everything related to science needs to be cold, hard facts. But that is simply not how it works. Einstein himself even said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." There were also little things like the fuzzless baby tyrannosaurs, but in the words of Holtz, "aaah, well." Besided, there were many things that I liked. As I mentioned before, the raptors were feathered this time. I was also impressed with the depiction of Quetzalcoatlus. The description was highly reflective of recent research, which suggests it lived something like a stork, going onto the ground and eating baby dinosaurs.

I have not read the opinions of others because, frankly, I'd rather stick to my own. I am not very knit-picky when it comes to TV shows on dinosaurs like some are. It's not my style. I prefer to just sit back and enjoy the show for what it is. And the truth is, many are actually quite good.

Protoavis- What a headache! (Part 1 of a series on bird evolution)

2009-12-05T11:00:00.000-08:00

Lately I have been very interested in the evolution of birds. While I have always been fascinated by the subject, it was recently brought back to my attention when I checked out a book at my college library called Dinosaurs of the Air. Written and illustrated by Greg Paul, it is very interesting to look at. While looking through it, I came across a little part on the infamous "Protoavis" (I am putting the name in quotation marks due to its uncertain status).

To give a brief overview, "Protoavis" is the name given by Sankar Chatterjee to some fossils found in Triassic deposits in Texas. Chatterjee argued that this animal was in fact the earliest known bird, thus moving back the origin of birds by at least 75 million years. Many other paleontologists disagree however. A common criticism of the remains is that their disarticulated nature makes them difficult to identify. Many even think it is a chimera; that is, a combination of different species. In Dinosaurs of the Air, Paul argues that the head and neck material of "Protoavis" actually belong to a drepanosaur, a chameleon-like reptile from the late Triassic. He also argues against many other features of its anatomy, saying that they do not appear to be features of a flying bird, as Chatterjee claims. In addition, Paul criticizes the apparent quill knobs, saying that they appear to be just abnormalities in the bone. Many other paleontologists have similar views. However, it has also been suggested that the fossils belong to an "aberrant theropod."

What do I think? Whatever it is, I do not think that "Protoavis" is a bird. Such an interpretation does not fit the other data. The evidence much better points to a Jurassic origin of birds. I think the interpretation of it as a chimera is probably correct, and consists of drepanosaur and theropod remains.

To add to the confusion, the same name was given by Feduccia to a hypothetical reptilian bird ancestor, based on Heilmann's "proavis."

The Dinosaur Book

2009-11-26T10:10:00.001-08:00

First off, I would like to say happy Thanksgiving for any Americans who are reading this. I hope you enjoy your theropod. With that being said, I can now get to the point of this post.

The first popular book on dinosaurs was written by Edwin Colbert in 1945, and was creatively entitled The Dinosaur Book. It was later republished in 1951. I have always enjoyed looking at outdated dinosaur books, and was fortunate enough to find a copy of the 1951 edition at my college's library. It is very interesting to read what it says and then compare it with what we know today. Now, of course there's the usual sauropods had to live in water, dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles, etc. stuff you would expect to find, but here are a few bits that I found interesting.

1. So little diversity: Compared to the hundreds of dinosaur genera we know today (Horner's outrageous prediction notwithstanding), relatively few are mentioned in The Dinosaur Book. For example, in a section that talks about the Morrison formation, the only genera that are mentioned are Ornitholestes, Allosaurus, "Brontosaurus," Diplodocus, Stegosaurus, and Camptosaurus. It really shows how few dinosaurs were known in those days.

2. The ceratopsian classification: On one page there is a family tree of the ceratopsians, which is quite different from what we currently know about the evolution of this interesting group. It goes like this. At the bottom is Psittacosaurus, which then evolves into Protoceratops. It then branches off, with one branch leading to Chasmosaurus, and the other branching further into Monoclonius (now thought to be a juvenile Centrosaurus) and Styracosaurus. Monoclonius then proceeds to evolve into Triceratops. It is now known that Triceratops belonged to the same family as Chasmosaurus.

3. Troodon as a pachycephalosaur: This was actually the result of a big taxonomic confusion. When Troodon was first discovered, it was only known from a tooth that was identified as a lizard. It was later found that the tooth was similar to the teeth of the pacycephalosaur Stegoceras. Because of this, Stegoceras was reclassified as a junior synonym of Troodon. Meanwhile, complete remains of Troodon were being given the name Stenonychosaurus. Eventually this mess was sorted out into the classification we see today.

4. SCUBA crests: As one would expect, hadrosaurs are described as being aquatic. More interesting, however, is the idea proposed that the crests on some hadrosaurs were in fact used as air storage chambers.

It is tempting to ridicule the book. However, we must keep in mind that they did not have the information that we have now. In fact, this book was probably accurate for the time. I wonder what people will be saying about Holtz's book fifty years from now.

How my blog got its name.

2009-11-22T17:55:00.000-08:00

For my first real post, I will be talking about the inspiration for my blog's name. I named this blog after the dinosaur genus Alioramus, whose name means "other branch." Alioramus was a genus of tyrannosaurid that lived in the early Maastrichtian stage of the late Cretaceous, in what is now Mongolia.

There are two known species of Alioramus. The first one, A. remotus, is only known from a skull and a few other bones. The second, A. altai, was just recently described and is known from a relatively complete skeleton. It got its name because when it was discovered, it was believed to represent a unique branch of the tyrannosaur family tree. These days it is widely believed to be related to Tarbosaurus. In fact, it has been speculated that Alioramus might actually be a juvenile Tarbosaurus, but the discovery of A. altai casts doubt on this idea. The known specimens are believed to be subadults, and would have been smaller than Tarbosaurus even when fully grown.

Alioramus is known for the distinctive row of bumps on its stout. These bumps were probably used for display, as they were too small to be used as weapons. The discovery of A. altai also reveals it to be significantly more gracile than its larger cousins.

Starting a Blog

2009-11-22T15:11:00.000-08:00

Hello. My name is Ian. I have a burning passion for paleontology. The purpose of this blog is to share my thoughts and musings on the subject, and maybe occasionally something completely random. I am 18 years old, and a freshman in college. I am currently majoring in biology, but will also need to take a bunch of geology as well. Well, good day. I'll hopefully be posting stuff of interest soon.